Public Talk 5, Brussels, 24 June 1956

at the Palais des Beaux Arts at 3.30 P.m.

One of our great problems, it seems to me, is how to free ourselves from the complex problem of sorrow. Intellectually, we try to grapple with it; but unfortunately the intellect has no solution to the problem, -except that it tries to find out a mere verbal rationalization, or, not finding it, tries to invent theories, or tries to rationalize it, or becomes cynical and bitter. But I think, if we could very seriously examine the whole problem of suffering, — not merely verbally, but actually experience the whole process of it, — then perhaps we shall be able to find out its cause, and whether the discovery of any cause does bring about the solution of it. So, what I would like to do this afternoon is to attempt to go into this whole problem of sorrow. Because it is obviously one of the fundamental issues in our life. Because most of us have some kind of sorrow, secret or open, and we are always trying to find out how to go beyond it, how to free ourselves from it. And if we could, not merely intellectually, understand the problem of sorrow, then perhaps we shall be able to understand also the really deep workings of the mind, — which, if we do not understand them, will obviously maintain and continue sorrow.

Is sorrow a thing to be got rid of by merely rationalizing it? — that is, by explaining the cause of sorrow. We all know why we suffer. I’m talking particularly of psychological suffering, not merely the physical. If I know why I suffer psychologically, — know, in the sense of recognizing the cause of that sorrow, — will that sorrow disappear? Or, must I look for a deeper issue, rather than merely try to find out the innumerable causes that bring about that state which the mind calls suffering? Now, how am I to find out the deeper issues? Because, most of our minds are very easily satisfied by superficial responses and superficial satisfactory escapes from the deep issue of suffering.

We know that we suffer, — consciously or unconsciously, verbally or actually, -because there is the whole contradiction of desires, one desire trying to dominate another. These contradictory desires make for conflict; and that conflict invariably leads to a state of mind which we call suffering. That is the whole complex which desire creates; that is, it seems to me, the source of all sorrow. And that desire, or the many contradictory desires, wishes, longings, hopes, fears, memories, is the concern of most of us. We are conscious of ourselves only when there is a conflict within us; otherwise, we are not conscious.

That is, we are most of us concerned with our achievements, our successes, our well-being, the fulfilment of our ambitions; we are concerned about ourselves. And I think that is the real source of all sorrow, — this self-concern. And most of us realize that, and try to escape from it. We escape through various activities, identifying ourselves with various organizations and throwing ourselves into that, — or become stupidly religious, which is not religious at all, — or cling to some form of action, some belief.

So what we are essentially concerned with, most of us, though we are aware that we are suffering, is how to escape from that suffering, how to resolve it. And in the process of the resolution of that suffering we do various activities, various things.

And it seems to me that it is very important, if we would free ourselves from sorrow, to go into this whole complex which we call desire, the whole complex of this entity called the ‘me’. And, is it possible to live in this world without this complex, without this bundle of memories which we call the ‘I’, the ‘me’, from which all suffering comes into being? I do not know if you have thought of this problem at all. Because most of us, when we do suffer, for various reasons, try to find an answer, try to escape, try to identify ourselves with something or other which will alleviate this suffering. But yet, the suffering goes on; either consciously we are aware of it, or it is underground, hidden.

Now, can the mind free itself from that suffering? This must be a problem to many of us who think about these things. Because most of us do suffer, acutely or superficially. And can there be an ending to sorrow, or is sorrow inevitable? If it is the human lot to suffer endlessly, then we can accept it and abide with it. But I think to merely accept such a state would be foolish; because no man wants to be in a state of sorrow.

And, is it possible to end sorrow? As we said, sorrow is the result, not only of ignorance, which is lack of self-knowledge, but also of this enormous process of effort that everyone makes to be something or to acquire something or to reject something. That is, can we live in this world without effort? — effort being the desire to be something, to become something, to achieve or to reject or to acquire. That is what we are doing all the time, isn’t it? — we are making effort. I am not saying that there must be no effort, but I am inquiring into the problem of effort. Because I can see in myself, — and it must be obvious to most of us, — that as long as I desire success, — I’m taking that as an example, -as long as I desire to be successful, in this world, or psychologically, spiritually, then there must be effort; we exert ourselves to achieve. And, as long as the mind is seeking success, and endeavouring to achieve it, there must be effort. And it seems to me that suffering is the very nature of that effort.

Please, don’t brush aside what I am saying. Because, it’s easy to say “One cannot live in this world without effort, there must be effort. Everything in nature struggles; and so, if we do not make an effort, there will be no life at all”. That is not what I am talking about. I am inquiring into the process of effort, — not that we should reject effort, or sustain it, augment it, or increase it, give it more vitality. What I am trying to ask is, whether effort is necessary psychologically, or, effort does [does effort] produce the seed of sorrow.[?]

Because, when we make an effort, it is obviously with a motive, — with a motive to achieve, to be, to become something. And where there is effort there is the action of will, which is essentially desire, — one desire opposing another desire. So, there is a contradiction. And to overcome the contradiction we try various ways of integration, -in which again is involved effort. So, our whole life, our way of thinking, our way of living, is a process of ceaseless effort.

This effort is surely, is it not?, the ‘me’, the ‘I’, the self which is concerned with itself and its activities. So, how can the mind free itself from this complex, from this bundle of efforts, desires, urges, compulsions, — without effort, without a motive? I hope I’m making myself clear. Because, this is a very complex problem. I know my life is a series of desires, many wants and many frustrations, many hopes, longings, aspirations, the cultivation of virtue, the search for moral standing, trying to conform. And in that very process of conformation there is the urge to be free. All that is the ‘me’, the ‘I’. And that is the source of sorrow.

Now, any effort I make in order to be free of sorrow, furthers sorrow; because in that is involved again effort. And I think one must understand this fundamentally, -that effort, which means trying to become something, do something, achieve a result, success, and so on, has produced sorrow. And if I make an effort to get rid of sorrow, I’ll build a resistance against sorrow, and that very resistance is a form of suppression, which again breeds further sorrow. So, I see that. Then, what is the mind to do? How is the mind which is caught in sorrow to free itself from sorrow? Can it do anything? Because, any action on its part has a motive behind it; and a motive invariably breeds conflict; and that conflict begets sorrow.

I think that is the issue. Because, I think I’ll be happy if I make a success of life, have plenty of things, position, power, money. So, I struggle. And in the very process of struggling to achieve that which I want, there is conflict, there is pain, there is frustration; and so sorrow is set going. Or, if I am not worldly-minded, then I turn to so-called spiritual things. Then also I am trying, endeavouring, to achieve, to realize, to know God, truth, and all the rest of it. So again there is a struggle, I cultivate virtue, I conform, I obey the sanctions of church, society, or follow Yoga, this, that, — ten different things I do in order to achieve, in order to know, so that my mind will be at peace, quiet.

So, in all this is involved conflict, suppression, resistance, — which seems to me so utterly futile, without meaning. So what is the mind to do? I know the whole pattern of suffering, and I know the causes of that suffering. And I know the ways of escaping from that suffering. And escaping from that suffering is no answer; it is there always, like a poison. So, knowing the pattern of suffering, what is the mind to do?

How does the mind know of anything? When I say “I know”, what do I mean by that? Is it merely intellectual knowledge, a verbal rationalized understanding of this whole network of suffering? Or, am I aware of it totally, inwardly? Do I know it merely as something which I have learned, which I have been taught, which I have captured through description, or, am I aware of it actually in myself, as a process taking place every moment of my existence? Which is it? I think that is an important question, — how do I know that I suffer? Do I know it merely because I am missing something, — my son is dead, or I’ve lost someone, — or that I feel frustrated? Or, do I know with my whole being the nature of all desire, of all becoming? And must I go through all the process of every desire in order to find that out?

So, I see that there must be suffering as long as I do not totally comprehend desire, — desire in which is involved conflict, contradiction, suppression, the action of will, resistance, — all that is involved in desire. Whether we desire a superficial thing, or the deep fundamental things, all that is involved. And can the mind be free from desire? And to find that out, whether the mind can be free from desire, — the psychological desire to be something, to succeed, to become, to find God, to achieve, — you know, the whole psychological process of desire, — can the mind understand it and be free from it? Or, life is a process of continuous conflict, misery, and therefore there is no end to it. You may find a panacea, a way of permanent escape; but it’s still there. You may throw yourself into a dogma, into an activity, completely try to forget yourself; but it is still there.

So, can the mind understand the process of desire? And, to understand, is it a matter of effort? — or, does understanding come when the mind sees the whole process of desire? — sees it, knows it, experiences it, is aware of it totally, and therefore, as it cannot do anything about it, it becomes silent, quiet, with regard to that problem. I think that is the fundamental issue, — not, how to transcend desire, how to transform desire, how to control it, how to deny it, but, rather, to know the full significance of desire, the totality of desire, — and knowing it, be completely motionless, silent, without any action with regard to it.

Because, when the mind is confronted with an enormous problem like desire, any action on its part distorts that problem. Any movement of trying to understand the enormity of that problem, makes that problem petty, shallow. Whereas if the mind can look at this enormous problem of desire, without any movement, without any denial, without accepting or rejecting, then I think we will find that desire has quite a different significance, that one can live in this world without contradiction, without struggle, without this everlasting process of trying to arrive, trying to achieve.

I think that when the mind is so capable of looking at itself, then you will find the mind itself becomes an astonishing instrument, which is capable of observing, experiencing, without adding something to itself. Therefore the mind itself, if it is not contaminated by desire and all the problems connected with it, — the mind itself then is the reality, — not the mind that we know of, but the mind that is completely without the self, without desire.

Question: You talked yesterday of mediocrity. I realize my own mediocrity, but how am I to break through it?

Krishnamurti: It is the mediocre mind that demands a way to break through or achieve. Therefore when you say “I am mediocre, how am I to break through it?”, you do not then realize the full significance of mediocrity. The mind that wants to change itself, improve itself, — however great its effort, — will always remain mediocre. Because that is what we are all doing, are we not? We all want to change this into that. I am stupid, and I want to be clever. The man who is stupid, and is attempting to become clever, will always remain stupid. But the man who is aware that he is stupid, and realizes the full significance of that, and does not wish to change it, — that very realization that he is stupid puts an end to stupidity.

That is, can the mind look at the fact without wishing to alter the fact? Can I look at myself as being arrogant, or stupid, or vain, — merely realize that fact, and not wish to change it? The desire to change it breeds mediocrity. Because then I am begging to inquire how I am to change it. Then you tell me what to do about it, I go to lectures, talks, read books, in order to change that which I am. And I am led away from facing the fact of what I am. And being led away from the fact consists in the cultivation of mediocrity.

So, can I look at the fact of mediocrity without wishing to break through it? Because, my mind is mediocre, our minds are mediocre, -it does not matter whose mind it is, it is mediocre, bound by tradition, by the past. And such a mind, trying to improve itself, to break through its own limitations, will still be the same mind, only it wants to experience a new sensation, — which is, a state of not being mediocre.

So, the problem is not how to break through mediocrity. For mediocrity is the result of pursuing tradition, — the tradition which society has established, or the tradition which I myself have cultivated and pursue. Because, tradition invariably leads to mediocrity. And can the mind, which is the result of tradition, of time, — how can such a mind break through? Any effort on its part to break through will be an activity of mediocrity, therefore the result will still be mediocre.

That is the real issue, — because, we don’t see that the mind, however cultivated, however clever, however erudite, is essentially mediocre. And such a mind, wanting to break through mediocrity, — its effort is still mediocre, therefore the result is mediocre. Now, when the mind sees that, the totality of it, not just the superficial mediocrity but the whole thing involved, -when the mind sees that fact, and does not try to break the fact, then you will find you are not concerned with mediocrity. Then you will find you are not trying to change this into that. Then that very fact begins to operate.

That is when the mind is aware of the fact, and does not operate on the fact, then you will see that the fact “begins to operate on the mind, — the fact that I am stupid, mediocre, — the fact. Then you will see how the mind has undergone a fundamental change. But as long as the mind wants to change, then whatever the change be, it will still be that which it has been, only under a different cloak.

So, that is why it is very important to understand the whole process of thinking. And that is why self-knowledge is essential. For you cannot know yourself if you are merely accumulating the knowledge of yourself. Then you know that which you have accumulated, -but not the way of the self, the way of yourself and its activities.

Question: How are we to put an end to man’s cruelty towards animals? — vivisection, slaughterhouses, and so on.

Krishnamurti: I do not think we will put an end to it. Because I do not think we know what it means to love. Why are we so concerned about animals? Not that we should not be, — we must; but, why this concern about animals only? Aren’t we cruel to each other? Our whole social structure is based on violence, which erupts every so often into war. And if we really want to stop war, you would really love your children.

But you do not love your children. They are the property of the so-called state, or of the church, or of an organization which demands certain things. And as our society is based on violence, acquisitive violence, of which we are a part, we are invariably cruel to each other. The whole structure of competition, comparison, position, property, inheritance, — in all that is involved violence. And we accept it as inevitable; and so we are cruel to each other, and so we are cruel to animals.

So the problem is not, how to stop slaughterhouses, how to be more kind to animals, — but I think we have lost the art of love: not sensation, not excitation, but the feeling of being really kind, the feeling of being really gentle, to be compassionate. Not, that if you are compassionate you will come to heaven, — but, to be really compassionate. That is, not asking anything for yourself.

But you see, all that demands quite a different psychological education. We are trained from childhood to compete, to be cruel, to fit into society. So as long as we are trained, educated, to fit into society, we will invariably be cruel. Because society is based on violence. And if we loved our children, we would educate them entirely differently, so that there is no war, no nationalities, not the rich and the poor, and the whole gamut of ugly society.

But we are not interested in all that, which is a very complex and profound problem. We are only concerned with how to stop some cruelty. Not, that we should not be concerned with the stopping of cruelty, — we can found an organization, and join it, and work for it ceaselessly, become the secretary, the president, write, subscribe, and all the rest of it; but the thing which is love will be missing. If we could concern ourselves with that, — which is an immense problem: to love, without any attachment, without any demand, without the search for sensation, — then perhaps we shall bring about a different relationship between human beings and with the animals.

Question: What is death, and why is there a fear of it?

Krishnamurti: I think it would be worthwhile not merely verbally but actually to go into this problem. Why do we separate life and death? Is life, living, separate from death? Or, death is part of living? And it may be that we do not know what living is; and so death seems such a terrible thing, something to be shunned, something to be explained, something to be avoided.

So, is not living part of dying? This is not poetical, — but, do I know I am living if I am merely accumulating? — accumulating not only property, money, position, but knowledge, virtues, all the things which I cherish and hold on to. Though I call it living, in that process is there a living? Or, that process is merely a series of [strife], contradictions, miseries, frustrations. I call all that living, don’t I? And so, I want to know what death is.

Because, we know that is the end for all of us, — death. The mechanism, the organism, wears itself out and dies. And so the mind says, “I have accumulated, I have lived, I have suffered, I have gathered: and is that all? And if there is a death, I want to know what lies beyond.” So, I’m afraid of death, because I do not know what lies beyond. So I begin to invent ideas, theories, reincarnation, resurrection, or going back into the past and living in the past. Or, having a belief in reincarnation, I want to prove it to myself, through hypnosis, and so on.

So, that is what we are all doing. Our life is shadowed by this thing called death. And I want to know, and you want to know, if there is any form of continuity. Or, you are so sick of life you want to die, not to inquire what is beyond; you are horrified to be told that there is a beyond. Or, you want to know for yourself if there is a beyond. So, that is our existence.

Now, what is the answer to all this? -why we have separated death from living, and why the mind clings to continuity. And, can the mind not be aware of something of what it calls death, as it knows living? — can it also know, or be aware of, the whole significance of dying? I know what my life is, and your life is, — we know it. Gathering, suffering, renouncing, searching, in constant pain, anxiety, — that is part of our existence. In that there is a continuity. I know that I live, because I know I am suffering, I am enjoying, my memory goes on, my experiences colour future experiences; there is a continuity, a momentum, of a series of events linked by memory, — which I call living. I know that. But do I know death, what death is? Can I ever know it? Not what lies beyond, which is not really very important. But, can I know, experience, the meaning of that thing called death, while actually living? While I am conscious, while physically I am vigorous, my mind clear, capable of direct thinking, without any sentimentality, emotionalism, can I know, experience, that thing which I call death? I know I have experienced what living is, -and can I, in the same way, with the same vigour, potency, know the meaning of death?

Because, if I merely die at the last moment, — through disease, accident, — then I shan’t know.

So, my problem is not, what is death, what lies beyond death, how to avoid the fear of death? You cannot avoid the fear of death as long as the mind has a series of events and experiences linked by memory, -and the ending of that we fear.

Surely that which has continuity is never creative. It’s only the mind that dies to everything from moment to moment, -to everything, — then only it knows what it is to die. This is not emotionalism. This requires a great deal of insight, thought, inquiry. For we can know death as well as life while living; while living we must enter the house of death, the unknown. And for the mind, which is the result of the known, to enter the unknown, there must be the cessation, the wiping away, of all the things it has known, all the things it has gathered, not only consciously, but much more profoundly, in the unconscious. To wipe all that away means, to die. Then we will find there is no fear.

I am not offering this as a panacea for fear, — but, to understand and to know the full meaning of death, — which is, to be completely nothing, to have no residue of the past. Whether that is possible or not is a different fact, that we can inquire, search out diligently, vigorously, work hard at it to find out. But if the mind merely clings to living, — which is suffering, which is all this process of accumulation, — and tries to avoid the other, then it knows neither living nor death.

So, the problem is, how to free the mind from the known? — whether the mind can free itself from all the things it has gathered, which it has acquired, experienced, so that it is made innocent, so that it can understand that which is death, the unknowable.